F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from RobertBryant

I am waiting for Ascoli65's algebraic definition of " vapor bubbles produced by boiling"

in Term5.

Is it D2O or A2O?

Time in Italy 2.14 am .Time in MIT 9.14 pm.

• JedRothwell likes this.

Let's give oystla some more time to figure out and explain how the calorimeter model of Fleischmann and Pons represents this term.

Then there are the CF veterans, who are going to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of the Cold Fusion announcement at MIT. They should be able to easily solve the mystery. Many of them have thoroughly analyzed the papers and models of F&P and have proclaimed their validity for decades. So, they should know the answer … if there is one.

JedRothwell, who liked your post, is sure that the calorimeter model in the 1992 paper (1) includes the term which accounts for vapor from boiling (2-3). I hope he will be in Boston next Saturday, to ask the major world experts in LENR to show where it hides, so to avoid the "devastating" consequences feared by oystla (4).

In any case, I'll wait until next Monday before proposing my definition of Term5.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

(2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(3) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(4) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

Quote from robert bryant

Why can't Ascoli65 be more assertive

Don't rely on Oystia.

Don't be humble.. Assert Ascolian algebraicity.

My math is not important. It can wait. What is important here and now is whether F&P math is correct and my assertion is that it is not correct. The calorimeter model described at Page 3 of their major paper (1) is not adequate to describe the energy balance when the cell is near or at boiling conditions, because it lack the term which accounts of the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles produced by direct boiling. Is this claim not assertive enough?

oystla is fundamental on this issue. He triggered this last and fundamental debate on the adequacy of the calorimeter model, when he pointed at Fig.7 to claim that F&P proved mathematically some crucial aspects of the boil-off timing (2). However, this Fig.7 is based on Equation [4], which derives from the calorimeter model represented in Equation [1], and both these equations lack of the boiling term. This is another blatant and fundamental nonsense contained in the paper reporting the most famous F&P experiment.

oystla is the only one - among thousands of L-F members, mostly LENR supporters, and, in many cases, strenuous advocates, who even claim to have strong competence in the field – to have carefully looked at the documents and carried out a correct and serious scientific confrontation on the matter. I'm grateful to his effort and would like to conclude our confrontation on the 1992 paper (1) with a common agreement on its validity and then proceed to the examination of the seminal 1990 paper (3), as he asked many times.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

(2) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

(3) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

Quote

The world, Italy and MIT are waiting.

The world is awaiting MIT!

Quote from Wyttenbach

As said the boil off was always an extrapolation or and estimate.

Not exactly. The 1992 boil-off experiment is the most famous of the F&P tests and their results have been presented in the following decades as the most tangible proof of the CF reality and of its capacity to provide excess heat for practical applications.

In the F&P paper presented at ICCF3 (1), the presumed results of the boil-off phase have been calculated (see Page 16) on the basis of experimental data, which the authors presented as "reasonably accurate estimates" or "accurately known" (see Page 14). However, as shown in the related video, these data resulted to be misinterpreted and misrepresented.

Quote

The proof for LENR is the whole phase before.

You are probably talking about those numbers indicated as Q_f/W and aligned on the four diagrams of Figure 6. But this is not a proof. These are only numbers obtained with a highly questionable procedure, better described in the 1990 seminal paper (2), and applied to unknown raw data. Hence no proof, just a declaration.

Quote

The boil off only shows the potential of LENR …

As far as can be seen from the lab video, the boil-off only shows the potential of LENR to delude people about the capacity of the F&P method to produce excess heat.

(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf

Quote from RobertBryant

The world is waiting.... Italy... MIT

The world is waiting MIT, whose "Energy Production and Energy Conversion Group" organizes the "The 2019 Cold Fusion [LANR] Colloquium at MIT" in order "to increase excellence of science and engineering and improved public awareness of the development of this important field" (1).

Will they really improve "public awareness"?

A 2019 theme is "engineering "road" from achieving the hydrided lattices in nickel and palladium and similar metals, to releasing the desired Excess Energy". A road which seems to be much longer than what Fleischmann and Pons let the public believe when, in 1992, claimed (2) "that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."

Will the Colloquium organizers ask the CF/LENR/LANR veterans, who will meet under the MIT authoritative brand, to clarify how this road has started about 30 years ago, in order to increase public awareness of whether it will ever have a successful end?

(1) http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

Quote from RobertBryant

Fleischmann and Pons were experimental scientists.

They made no prediction date of practical application. AFAIK.

Fleischmann wrote to Melvin Miles around 2003

"I told the folks that the only research which was now justified was that aimed at producing a working prototype""

The Colloquium announcement (1) speaks of "desired Excess Energy". F&P already claimed in their 1992 paper (2) "specific excess rates [which] are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors."

And in 1994, speaking from his office at IMRA-France during his interviews for the documentary "Too close to the Sun" (3), MF told the BBC audience (at t=14:25): "And since we have been here, we’ve got up to about 4 kW/cm³, which is about the level of heat release you get in what is called a FBR."

So, he directly confirmed that the "desired Excess Heat" had already been achieved. At that point, it was just a matter of maintaining the boiling condition for about 3 months, as he explained in the same documentary at t=35:28.

Unfortunately, all this bold declarations were based on a single boil-off experiment, the one carried out on April-May 1992, whose lab video shows that F&P mistook foam for boiling water, completely mistaking the evaluation of the power balance, which gave an non-existent excess heat and, moreover, at a level suitable for practical applications.

Quote

F&P did not play on the ITER field where the goalposts are shifted continually... now at 2050++?

and currently billions of euros are poured into a new concrete Stonehenge in Provence, France

and even a few miserable 60 sterling millions in Oxford UK... depending on how Brexit breaks.

You can also add the 500(++…) MEuros that Italy is going to waste in the DTT (Divertor Tokamak Testing) facility. So what? Here we are talking about Cold Fusion and more specifically of the F&P experiments.

Quote

Ascoli65 can indulge in historical prophecy and postdict what F&P should have predicted..,

but Ascoli65 can also reveal to the world and MIT, Italy

the intricacy of Term 5 +? in his pixelated masterpiece...

This is the time of revelation for MIT. This scientific institute is going again to put its prestigious name at disposition of the LENR community. That's good, if it is done for improving public awareness, as stated in their announcement. It's less good, if the MIT name is used to delude the public with unfounded information. It is responsibility of the organizers to request that the main claims, on which the CF research is based, be adequately clarified for the benefit of the public.

They could start with the 4 kW/cm³ claim, by showing to the participants to the CF Colloquium the video of the 1992 boil-off experiment (4) and asking them to clarify once and for all if the content of the cells during their final boil-off phase was boiling water (liquid fraction = almost 100%) or mostly a mix of foam and vapor bubbles (liquid fraction <<100%).

(1) http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

(3) http://vimeo.com/9438745

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

Quote from RobertBryant

MF actually said at 3.28 "This is the device with which we are aiming to try to maintain boiling conditions for about 3 months

Notice that Ascoli 65 is deceptively changing the words in a manner which shows a very good command of English,

I suspect that Ascoli65 is a competent speaker of English but feigns difficulty.

So actually it WAS NOT JUST A MATTER of 3 months .. NOT AT ALL... This is Ascoli65's DECEPTION.

The words in my previous post were: "So, he directly confirmed that the "desired Excess Heat" had already been achieved. At that point, it was just a matter of maintaining the boiling condition for about 3 months, as he explained in the same documentary at t=35:28."

In my opinion, these words summarizes also what the BBC narrator said just before MF (at 35:19): "They see the next step as engineering problem. How to maintain such high heat releases for longer periods of time." So, for what I understand, the BBC audience have been induced to believe that the engineering problem were mostly tied to the capacity of maintaining the boiling condition for 3 months.

In any case, I indicated the link to the video and the time (which was 35:28 and not 3:28) so that anyone who understand English better than me can deduce his own interpretation.

Quote

Six decades for cold fusion prectical application gives a 2049...startup date.

a bit sooner than ITER-FUSION = 2050++.

Are you saying that the CF/LENR initiatives are aimed at playing the same game?

Quote

Practical application of nuclear technology is very difficult …

Practical application of whatever technology is simply IMPOSSIBLE if based on misrepresented data of misinterpreted experiments.

Quote

Ascoli65 seeks to limit the context to the myopic Ascolian world view centred around one1992 paper.

It's not my view. Large part of the F&P's activity first, then of MF's remembrances and, finally, of the propaganda carried out by the most active LENR advocates relies on the 1992 boil-off paper (2) and on the related videos. Therefore, a suitable and due way for the MIT organizers of the CF Colloquium to improve public awareness of this "important" field is to urge the participants to provide a definitive clarification of the fundamental claims contained in this unique paper.

Quote

Qual è il significato +?

The meaning of the question mark is to represent the request to oystla, JedRothwell, Wyttenbach and the other L-F members of showing which term in equation [1] of the 1992 paper accounts for the enthalpy carried away by the vapor bubbles produced by boiling. This question has remained unanswered so far. I extend this request also to the LENR experts who will meet Saturday at MIT. Let's see if they will be able to answer.

(1) https://patentimages.storage.g…66d704042/EP0463089B1.pdf

(2) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf